Gay Marriage

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

02-22-2004, 02:56 PM
leftism

Quote:

Originally posted by agrajag
Realising that some people are so self-important that they only read what they themselves post.

Indeed. It took 5 posts to get you to realise that Hobbes and I were not talking about Busyman disagreeing with us, but that Busyman was ignoring every counter argument and simply repeating his own multiple times.

Quote:

My only point with regard to the cause of homosexuality is that it does not matter. Whether it is genetic, hormonal, learned or a combination of these and other factors it seems agreed that it is not a matter of choice. As such should not effect people's rights.

Thats why this "is it a choice" debate began in the first place. Busyman is arguing that "gay is learned" because he disagrees with both civil unions and marriages. If he were to accept that homosexuality is not a "lifestyle choice" his position on civil unions would be untenable.

So basically you thought Hobbes was attacking Busyman for disagreeing with him. You were wrong. You then defended Busymans position without even realising it goes against your own argument 100%.

If you'd paid a little more attention to the reasoning behind both Hobbes "condescension" and Busymans "being gay is a lifestyle choice" argument, this ugly little disagreement would not have occurred.
02-22-2004, 03:11 PM
Rat Faced

Quote:

Originally posted by Agrajag@22 February 2004 - 14:27
RF

Would this be considered flaming here ? Just wanted to know as I have not seen much to judge myself against. If so, my apologies for any inconvenience.

As j2k4 would point out.

If you use a club or baseball bat, your flaming.

If you use a rapier, its merely debate.....
02-22-2004, 03:20 PM
Agrajag

Quote:

Originally posted by leftism+22 February 2004 - 14:56--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (leftism @ 22 February 2004 - 14:56)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-agrajag
Realising that some people are so self-important that they only read what they themselves post.

Indeed. It took 5 posts to get you to realise that Hobbes and I were not talking about Busyman disagreeing with us, but that Busyman was ignoring every counter argument and simply repeating his own multiple times.

Quote:

My only point with regard to the cause of homosexuality is that it does not matter. Whether it is genetic, hormonal, learned or a combination of these and other factors it seems agreed that it is not a matter of choice. As such should not effect people's rights.

Thats why this "is it a choice" debate began in the first place. Busyman is arguing that "gay is learned" because he disagrees with both civil unions and marriages. If he were to accept that homosexuality is not a "lifestyle choice" his position on civil unions would be untenable.

So basically you thought Hobbes was attacking Busyman for disagreeing with him. You were wrong. You then defended Busymans position without even realising it goes against your own argument 100%.

If you'd paid a little more attention to the reasoning behind both Hobbes "condescension" and Busymans "being gay is a lifestyle choice" argument, this ugly little disagreement would not have occurred. [/b][/quote]
I had formed no opinion on the interaction between Hobbes and Busyman. I posted the condescension thing as a good natured pop at Hobbes and he took it as such. It related to his overall demeanor, here and elsewhere, not to his inter-action with Busyman in this thread. However given that you would not be aware of every discussion Hobbes and I have had, you may not have known that. A simple fact such as this is obviously not enough for you to desist from voicing your opinion, on matters which you are under-informed

This whole thing is based on your preconceptions on what I was getting at. Again I don't expect you to realise that, because you will consider it within your own context, which is obviously self absorbed. People have opinions and relationships separate from your experience and outwith your knowledge. As stated way back when, your omniscience is in doubt, at least to some of us.
02-22-2004, 03:22 PM
Agrajag

Quote:

Originally posted by Rat Faced+22 February 2004 - 15:11--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Rat Faced @ 22 February 2004 - 15:11)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Agrajag@22 February 2004 - 14:27
RF

Would this be considered flaming here ?  Just wanted to know as I have not seen much to judge myself against. If so, my apologies for any inconvenience.

As j2k4 would point out.

If you use a club or baseball bat, your flaming.

If you use a rapier, its merely debate..... [/b][/quote]
:lol: I'll bear that in mind :D
02-22-2004, 04:03 PM
leftism

Astounding, you've still missed the point by a mile....

Quote:

Originally posted by agrajag+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (agrajag)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>People have opinions and relationships separate from your experience and outwith your knowledge. As stated way back when, your omniscience is in doubt, at least to some of us.[/b]

A carbon copy of another post...

Quote:

Originally posted by agrajag@

The point may be that other people's certainty, with regard to your omniscience, may not be as complete as your own. This may lead them to have an opinion at odds with your's. I know this may come as a surprise, but you should at least consider the possibility.

Which I already replied to...

 :book:

PS I hear "Antidisestablishmentarianism" is a good one to go for, just try to use it sparingly otherwise it looks like you picked it up from the "word of the day" section of your local newspaper.
02-22-2004, 04:39 PM
Busyman

Quote:

Originally posted by leftism+22 February 2004 - 12:03--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (leftism @ 22 February 2004 - 12:03)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Astounding, you've still missed the point by a mile....

Quote:

Originally posted by agrajag+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (agrajag)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>People have opinions and relationships separate from your experience and outwith your knowledge. As stated way back when, your omniscience is in doubt, at least to some of us.[/b]

A carbon copy of another post...

 :book:

PS I hear "Antidisestablishmentarianism" is a good one to go for, just try to use it sparingly otherwise it looks like you picked it up from the "word of the day" section of your local newspaper. [/b][/quote]
I never thought the Agrajag was supporting my position. It seems that if he didn't support ...well....everyone else's position in the thread, he had to be supporting mine. :lol: <_<

Please cut the posts about "how your posting" and stick to the topic.
02-22-2004, 05:01 PM
Agrajag

Busyman

The topic is with regard to whether gay people should be allowed to marry / have a civil union. Not about why they are gay. I think my position on this is quite clear, if it coincides with the majority of people who have posted here, so be it. If yours is different then I am sure from reading your posts that you can live with that.

Leftism

Of course it is almost a carbon copy. You chose to leave a part from the quote, the part where I made it clear that I was re-iterating an earlier post. I do not use anon-line thesaurus, or a hard copy one for that matter. I suspect you do, may I suggest you use it in conjunction with a dictionary in future.

Your ability to be obtuse, self satisfied and condescending all at the same time is very well developed. You take small sections of what people say, out of context and then try to "brow-beat" them with your pseudo-intellectualism. The style is very familiar. The fact that I may have use the same words several times in this thread is perhaps because they were the proper words to use. I won't stop using them because of your playground taunts.
02-22-2004, 05:42 PM
leftism

Quote:

Originally posted by agrajag+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (agrajag)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Your ability to be obtuse, self satisfied and condescending all at the same time is very well developed[/b]

Considering this is coming from someone who is so confused that they cannot decide whether hobbes is male or female...

Quote:

Hobbes is indeed condescending, it is perhaps her most endearing quality.

Quote:

I posted the condescension thing as a good natured pop at Hobbes and he took it as such

I am not overly concerned :lol:

btw, is that what you meant by..

Quote:

some people have relationships separate from your experience and outwith your knowledge

..?

If so, do not despair, I'm sure the next object of your affection will turn out to be female.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Anyway, lets get back to the topic.

Quote:

Originally posted by agrajag@
The topic is with regard to whether gay people should be allowed to marry / have a civil union. Not about why they are gay

<!--QuoteBegin-leftism
Thats why this "is it a choice" debate began in the first place. Busyman is arguing that "gay is learned" because he disagrees with both civil unions and marriages. If he were to accept that homosexuality is not a "lifestyle choice" his position on civil unions would be untenable[/quote]

Its funny how things tend to go in circles. At the end of this little head to head we're back to the starting point. People not reading peoples posts, not keeping up with the thread and simply repeating their own position.

Talk about deja vu....

For those with short attention spans, I believe gay people dont choose to be gay and thus deserve the same treatment as straight couples. If they did choose that lifestyle just to be different then one could argue, as Busyman does, that they are merely being "awkard" and are demanding special treatment. I dont believe the Christian church should be forced to change its position, therefore civil unions are the best possible compromise.

In closing I'd like to ask Busyman why he's against civil unions. You said it was due to religious reasons, can you be more specific?
02-22-2004, 05:50 PM
Busyman

Quote:

Originally posted by hobbes+21 February 2004 - 23:09--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes @ 21 February 2004 - 23:09)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Busyman@22 February 2004 - 03:26

Actually hobbes, The American Psychiatric's position backs up my position not yours.

Thanks for the post. ;)

American Psychiatric Assoiciation- updated in 2000

Quote:

No one knows what causes heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality.
Homosexuality was once thought to be the result of troubled family dynamics or faulty psychological development. Those assumptions are now understood to have been based onmisinformation and prejudice.

Currently there is a renewed interest in searching for biological etiologies for homosexuality. However, to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality
.

Similarly, no specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of childhood sexual abuse. Sexual abuse does not appear to be more prevalent in children who grow up to identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, than in children who identify as heterosexual.

Actually, it does not. It admits that the exact cause of homosexuality is under investigation and biologic etiologies are the top area of research. It does not state that the biologic role is not promising, it states that they have yet to find a "specific entity" to explain it.

There is absolutely no mention that homosexuality is a choice. They do note on their website that when homosexuals come in to be "repaired" and made straight, no therapy has been shown to work. Why would anyone want to change but not be able if it is just a matter of free will?

The more recent Psychological Association directly contradicts your position. Please be sure to E-mail them and tell them it is all hogwash and that quite frankly this is all a matter of commonsense to Busyman, end of story.

You know what, I have decided, because of my free will, that rocks smell good and taste better. Whenever I see them, I will begin Pavlovian salivation.

Ok, I got a rock. What? I am not salivating, and it really has no taste. How come I cannot make it taste delicious by my free will. Oh right, my biology is not programmed to see rocks as a source of nutrients, so my brain does not make me want to eat them by giving them a delightful odor and taste. Guess I'm just hardwired. Just like the dung beetle is hardwired to think dung smells delightful and eats it.

We act as our brains' tell us. [/b][/quote]
Well one of my statements claimed that there ain't no proof of people being born homosexual.

The Psychiatric statement DID back that up.
Saying something is the top area of research .........AIN'T PROOF.
It seems that you claim it as fact. ;)
Furthermore, I never claimed "support" of the Psychological's statement.

lefty, the reason I keep bringing up the color blue is because YOU and HOBBES have a preconceived position.

hobbes regarding your rock...........put hot sauce on it.

You guys explanation towards sexuality is basically..... YOUR BORN WITH IT END OF DISCUSSION.
For something that has no proof, you guys seem to have all the answers. Maybe you could help the scientists. :lol:

You basically claim my position is spurious when it is quite logical.

Person likes WOMAN A because she has a nice face.
Another dislikes her because he thinks she's ugly. I guess all of that was hardwired. <_<

Back around my old neighborhood, there were gay women and men here and there.
There are guys that have hooked up with prostitutes, fine ass ones, then get in the bed and.......foind out she was a he. Well......some say fuck it, bend "him" over, and go for what they know. Are they gay?

You guys still haven't explained BIsexuals. You know why.......you can't. Even with your pseudoscientific explanations that have no... BASIS...IN....FACT.

Just to clarify my position (without a religious point of view).

Homosexuality a like not a choice. The behaviors that go along with it ARE learned.
There is no programming from birth that tells a person to like penis vs. vagina (or ass). You can go through life liking woman then in your 40's have an affair with a man :x :x .
Did the gay brain chemical jump up and bite you in the ass?
Oh I guess you were gay all along and fighting the urge until you were 40.
If you have a gay thought, are you gay?

hobbes read some more psychological studies. Straight people have had gay thoughts. You either liked or disliked them. Get it...like or disLIKE.

Take your Jamie Lee Curtis.
Most straight guys here would bang her. Why?
According to you she's a man....but she'd still get banged.

You know why?

She LOOKS like an attractive woman. Through what we have seen through life we think that's attractive. If she was fat, most of us would turn away. I guess that's the heterrosexual anti-fat chemical? :lol: :lol: <_<
We look at her and think she has a nice ass, face, and ti..tays!!!
02-22-2004, 05:59 PM
Busyman

Quote:

Originally posted by Agrajag@22 February 2004 - 13:01
Busyman

The topic is with regard to whether gay people should be allowed to marry / have a civil union. Not about why they are gay. I think my position on this is quite clear, if it coincides with the majority of people who have posted here, so be it. If yours is different then I am sure from reading your posts that you can live with that.

Leftism

Of course it is almost a carbon copy. You chose to leave a part from the quote, the part where I made it clear that I was re-iterating an earlier post. I do not use anon-line thesaurus, or a hard copy one for that matter. I suspect you do, may I suggest you use it in conjunction with a dictionary in future.

Your ability to be obtuse, self satisfied and condescending all at the same time is very well developed. You take small sections of what people say, out of context and then try to "brow-beat" them with your pseudo-intellectualism. The style is very familiar. The fact that I may have use the same words several times in this thread is perhaps because they were the proper words to use. I won't stop using them because of your playground taunts.

Your exactly right. I and hobbes have morphed the topic.
In regards to you I was being sarcasactic. I knew all along you didn't necessarily support my position so I don't know what lefty was talking about. Seems you just didn't back him up. <_<

lefty- off topic question- Do you know 1234 personally or are you the same person?
02-22-2004, 06:20 PM
leftism

Quote:

Originally posted by busyman+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (busyman)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>lefty, the reason I keep bringing up the color blue is because YOU and HOBBES have a preconceived position.[/b]

Agrajag, in all seriousness and with all due respect, can you see what Ive been getting at now?

Busyman, for the millionth time. Colour preference is not equivalent to sexuality. Arguing that because colour preference is not affected by your genes therefore sexuality is not affected by your genes is completely illogical. Even if you repeat it a million times, its still illogical.

Our position is quite clear.

Its supported by science.
Its supported by case studies.
Its supported by what everyone whos reading this instinctively knows based on their own experience.

What is there to support your position? Nothing!

Quote:

You guys explanation towards sexuality is basically..... YOUR BORN WITH IT END OF DISCUSSION.
For something that has no proof, you guys seem to have all the answers. Maybe you could help the scientists.

Maybe you should READ that document properly. Because you know what is missing? Your position. They are researching the genetic connection because that seems to be the most promising. They have ruled out "psychosocial or family dynamic cause".

They dont even mention like/dislike as a possible cause. Do you think that means anything?

Quote:

Originally posted by busyman+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (busyman)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You basically claim my position is spurious when it is quite logical.[/b]

Its utterly illogical! Your arguing that sexuality is a simple like/dislike that has nothing to do with evolutiion or its resulting effect on human genetics.

Quote:

Originally posted by Busyman
Person likes WOMAN A because she has a nice face.
Another dislikes her because he thinks she's ugly. I guess all of that was hardwired.

It is actually. Research has been done that shows the idea of what is attractive is largely similar across different countries and cultures with a few minor exceptions.

They even came up with a mathematical formula that represented the ideal ratio between certain features of the face.

There are individual differences in taste but on average there is a consensus. To put it in really really simple terms for you. Some men get off on fat women, but very very few do. Most men like a slim women with 'nice' hips.

You know why? Because it signifies a healthy female who can bear children. Its the result of millions of years of evolution. <--- logic

btw the "perfect" hip/waist ratio is 0.7 (the waist is 70% the size of the hips).

This has been scientifically proven to be true, although Im sure you'll deny it. <_<

<!--QuoteBegin-busyman@
You guys still haven't explained BIsexuals. You know why.......you can't. Even with your pseudoscientific explanations that have no... BASIS...IN....FACT.[/quote]

Yes it does have basis in fact. Its called evolutionary psychology. YOUR opinions have no basis in fact. I challenge you to find one respected scientific study that says sexualitty is a simple like/dislike similar to colour preference.

If sexuality is defined by genetics then theres no reason why bi-sexuality cant be decided by it too.

<!--QuoteBegin-Busyman
You can go through life liking woman then in your 40's have an affair with a man .
Did the gay brain chemical jump up and bite you in the ass?
Oh I guess you were gay all along and fighting the urge until you were 40.
If you have a gay thought, are you gay?[/quote]

Who the hell does that? Just switches from straight to gay overnight? You've got to be joking....

Quote:

hobbes read some more psychological studies. Straight people have had gay thoughts. You either liked or disliked them. Get it...like or disLIKE.

Thats it! Just repeat it 10 more times and it'll be true!!

WHERE ARE THESE STUDIES????????

btw, Im still waiting for a reason why your against civil unions. You havent mentioned it at all in this post.

Quote:

lefty- off topic question- Do you know 1234 personally or are you the same person?

No and no.

Now will you extend me the same courtesy by answering my question about civil unions? I think this is the 3rd time Ive asked without getting an answer.
02-22-2004, 06:43 PM
hobbes

Quote:

Some homosexual animals have one-night stands and some have long marriages. Gay and lesbian geese stay together year after year. Bottlenose dolphins don't form male-female couples, but males often form lifelong pairs with other males. Some are interested only in males, but others are bisexual and happily indulge in beak-genital propulsion and more with male or female alike.

When I look at the animal world and see that a certain percentage live EXCLUSIVELY homosexual lifestyles, I imagine that the cause in both man and animal is likely the same.

It was said by Busyman that animals just stick their naughty bits into whatever gives pleasure. Unfortunately it has been shown that is not the case.

I find it hard to believe that animals are making free will decisions to ignore females and be only with males. This observation makes me consider that there may be a genetic cause.

The evidence is there, the exact mechanism has not yet been detailed.

On the other hand, we have gay priests, who, despite knowing that their lifestyle will win them eternity in hell, can't fight their urges. And we have homosexual men who despite wanting to become straight can't, even with the assistance of doctors.

Kind of weird that you can chose to be one way, but be unable to reverse that decision.

And yes, I have explained bisexuality and no "genetics" is not pseudoscience.
02-22-2004, 06:49 PM
hobbes

Quote:

Originally posted by leftism@22 February 2004 - 19:20
Now will you extend me the same courtesy by answering my question about civil unions? I think this is the 3rd time Ive asked without getting an answer.

He is against civil unions because he chooses not to like the color blue. That much is obvious enough. :lol:
02-22-2004, 08:49 PM
Wizard_Mon1

Quote:

I find it hard to believe that animals are making free will decisions to ignore females and be only with males. This observation makes me consider that there may be a genetic cause.

Or a mental one??

Quote:

On the other hand, we have gay priests, who, despite knowing that their lifestyle will win them eternity in hell, can't fight their urges. And we have homosexual men who despite wanting to become straight can't, even with the assistance of doctors.

I'm sure i gave examples of how those can happen.... Now where were they. :rolleyes:

Heres one: Because they don't have the right methods?
Heres a theory for how: Your body stores this information e.g. body posture. Your body posture is interconnected with your mental process, one affects the other and vice versa. So in this way all your'e feelings from past experiences, and emotional reactions to them (e.g. abuse), have a direct influence on your actions.

Heres the other: I do not for one second believe that just because you devote yourself to god you have a pure mental thought process, but i also think that living that life can be extremely stressful and often they don't have any vent for there thoughts or feelings, this can lead to execesive thinking and self doubt. In the case were they become celebate, just this act can cas tremendous damage if there is no vent e.g. if a priest has sexual feelings towards a woman he will tell himself of because it is not what he has pledged to god. After a while of this confusion sets in because he has built up such a mental block against opposite sex attraction that his mind starts looking for somewhere else to explain his feelings. In the case of going in gay their are experiences in the individuals past that explain there homosexual tendancies - even if the individual is not aware of them.

I'm not saying this is it and thats all there is, i'm saying here is another view that shows that biological reason is not the the sole or undisputed reason.

But it's pointless saying any off this because it seems no one is listen to anyone else. <_<
02-23-2004, 12:56 AM
Busyman

Quote:

Originally posted by leftism+22 February 2004 - 14:20--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (leftism @ 22 February 2004 - 14:20)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Quote:

Originally posted by busyman+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (busyman)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>lefty, the reason I keep bringing up the color blue is because YOU and HOBBES have a preconceived position.[/b]

Agrajag, in all seriousness and with all due respect, can you see what Ive been getting at now?

Busyman, for the millionth time. Colour preference is not equivalent to sexuality. Arguing that because colour preference is not affected by your genes therefore sexuality is not affected by your genes is completely illogical. Even if you repeat it a million times, its still illogical.

Our position is quite clear.

Its supported by science.
Its supported by case studies.
Its supported by what everyone whos reading this instinctively knows based on their own experience.

What is there to support your position? Nothing!

Quote:

You guys explanation towards sexuality is basically..... YOUR BORN WITH IT END OF DISCUSSION.
For something that has no proof, you guys seem to have all the answers. Maybe you could help the scientists.

Maybe you should READ that document properly. Because you know what is missing? Your position. They are researching the genetic connection because that seems to be the most promising. They have ruled out "psychosocial or family dynamic cause".

They dont even mention like/dislike as a possible cause. Do you think that means anything?

Quote:

Originally posted by busyman
You basically claim my position is spurious when it is quite logical.

Its utterly illogical! Your arguing that sexuality is a simple like/dislike that has nothing to do with evolutiion or its resulting effect on human genetics.

Quote:

Originally posted by Busyman
Person likes WOMAN A because she has a nice face.
Another dislikes her because he thinks she's ugly. I guess all of that was hardwired.

It is actually. Research has been done that shows the idea of what is attractive is largely similar across different countries and cultures with a few minor exceptions.

They even came up with a mathematical formula that represented the ideal ratio between certain features of the face.

There are individual differences in taste but on average there is a consensus. To put it in really really simple terms for you. Some men get off on fat women, but very very few do. Most men like a slim women with 'nice' hips.

You know why? Because it signifies a healthy female who can bear children. Its the result of millions of years of evolution. <--- logic

btw the "perfect" hip/waist ratio is 0.7 (the waist is 70% the size of the hips).

This has been scientifically proven to be true, although Im sure you'll deny it. <_<

<!--QuoteBegin-busyman@
You guys still haven't explained BIsexuals. You know why.......you can't. Even with your pseudoscientific explanations that have no... BASIS...IN....FACT.

Yes it does have basis in fact. Its called evolutionary psychology. YOUR opinions have no basis in fact. I challenge you to find one respected scientific study that says sexualitty is a simple like/dislike similar to colour preference.

If sexuality is defined by genetics then theres no reason why bi-sexuality cant be decided by it too.

<!--QuoteBegin-Busyman
You can go through life liking woman then in your 40's have an affair with a man .
Did the gay brain chemical jump up and bite you in the ass?
Oh I guess you were gay all along and fighting the urge until you were 40.
If you have a gay thought, are you gay?[/quote]

Who the hell does that? Just switches from straight to gay overnight? You've got to be joking....

Quote:

hobbes read some more psychological studies. Straight people have had gay thoughts. You either liked or disliked them. Get it...like or disLIKE.

Thats it! Just repeat it 10 more times and it'll be true!!

WHERE ARE THESE STUDIES????????

btw, Im still waiting for a reason why your against civil unions. You havent mentioned it at all in this post.

Quote:

lefty- off topic question- Do you know 1234 personally or are you the same person?

No and no.

Now will you extend me the same courtesy by answering my question about civil unions? I think this is the 3rd time Ive asked without getting an answer. [/b][/quote]
Your support in case studies has been proven and disproven. There still isn't an answer or ..............having these figured it out. They haven't. <_<
YOU ARE CLAIMING SOMETHING AS FACT THAT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN.
All of what you said about bisexuality is well....they "proven" homosexuality is genetic so they CAN do the same with bisexuality.

Next thing you know there will be a pedophilia gene and beastiality gene. :lol:

My support is common sense.

Who the hell switches from straight to gay? Alot of people. It's called being turned out.
Hey did they have the ...gay gene, the straight gene, or bisexual gene?

Yeah that's REALLY logical. <_<

Quote:

It is actually. Research has been done that shows the idea of what is attractive is largely similar across different countries and cultures with a few minor exceptions.

They even came up with a mathematical formula that represented the ideal ratio between certain features of the face.

There are individual differences in taste but on average there is a consensus. To put it in really really simple terms for you. Some men get off on fat women, but very very few do. Most men like a slim women with 'nice' hips.

You know why? Because it signifies a healthy female who can bear children. Its the result of millions of years of evolution. <--- logic

btw the "perfect" hip/waist ratio is 0.7 (the waist is 70% the size of the hips).

This has been scientifically proven to be true, although Im sure you'll deny it.

So now there is a "I like hippy women" gene. You just said yourself it's cultural so HOW IS IT GENETIC!!!
For instance, in my area which is mostly black, we men like women with a fat ass and big tits. But white men living in certain tend to like well.....skinny women with "cute butts". Take a baby from Israel and have him grow up in my area and most likely will like fat ass and big tits but........who knows?

Next thing you know your going to tell me I "genetically" like rap music.

If you read these "studies" you will find that MOST people have had a homosexual "experience" in their lifetime (most as children). Not saying they necessarily had sex.

I remember the comedian Colin Quinn said (in his sorry ass HBO special) that he was walking and was startled to see this certain guy. They both felt awkward because they uh.......used to play with each other penis when they were young. :lol: :lol: :lol: :x

Regarding civil unions.......you need to read dude. I've addressed that already.
Since your hung up on it and "asked me three times" go back near the beginning of posts in this thread, pay attention, and READ. I gave a simple answer.

Quote:

Its funny how things tend to go in circles. At the end of this little head to head we're back to the starting point. People not reading peoples posts, not keeping up with the thread and simply repeating their own position

Quote from you lefty
As matter of fact it was my VERY FIRST POST. I then explained it due someone asking. Now extend me some courtesy and READ!!

Oh and btw regarding gay priests. That's very simple.

Gay priests are fighting the urge to........fuck.
THAT IT!!!

Now there preference is guys but the urge is to fuck.

If you think about it this applies to...guess what? STRAIGHT PRIESTS TOO.
We are compelled to fuck that's is all. Orgasms make it feel good and that's why we do it. Simple logic. Priests in general are trying to stop that urge to devote their life to god. THE URGE TO FORNICATE!!!
02-23-2004, 01:03 AM
Busyman

Quote:

Originally posted by hobbes+22 February 2004 - 14:49--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes @ 22 February 2004 - 14:49)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-leftism@22 February 2004 - 19:20
Now will you extend me the same courtesy by answering my question about civil unions? I think this is the 3rd time Ive asked without getting an answer.

He is against civil unions because he chooses not to like the color blue. That much is obvious enough. :lol: [/b][/quote]
Hmmmm maybe you should read as well then. <_<
02-23-2004, 01:22 AM
bigdawgfoxx

Fuck gay marriage. I mean I guess since the government isnt supposed to be involved with religion, and thats all that is wrong with it. Sept AIDS and shit..that is another issue. I am very strongly against gay marriage...thats fucking disquting and isnt good for the youth and especially kids that they may raise
02-23-2004, 01:35 AM
_John_Lennon_

Quote:

Originally posted by bigdawgfoxx@22 February 2004 - 20:22
Fuck gay marriage. I mean I guess since the government isnt supposed to be involved with religion, and thats all that is wrong with it. Sept AIDS and shit..that is another issue. I am very strongly against gay marriage...thats fucking disquting and isnt good for the youth and especially kids that they may raise

Bigdawg are you trying to say that two girls kissing is disgusting?

Give me a break.
02-23-2004, 01:41 AM
Biggles

There has been considerable debate regarding the nature vs nurture debate much of which is arcane in the extreme. However, I am not yet convinced I have seen anything close to a convincing argument to explain why individuals will fly in the face of extreme social pressure to pursue happiness in a same sex relationship. In darker times such relationships carried the death penalty. These indivuals would often play the part of "normal" by marrying and even raising families (ironically, if it is genetic, spreading the gene far and wide). Yet they would always be drawn to that within them which they knew was their preference.

Busyman has put forward the notion that the urge to procreate is the single most important driving force behind all animal behaviour including humans. This is a fair point - this primal urge is indeed very strong and is almost certainly genetic. This does not in my view explain homosexuality. A man through genetic coding may be attracted to a young woman of child bearing age whose symmetrical appearance triggers all the codes that say "pass on your genes through her". It is most unlikely that another man could trigger such codes. Unless of course something is different.

It must also be remembered that many homosexuals are fearful of the genetic argument. It could herald a return the Eugenics style position that they are merely malfunctions, corrupted genetic codes to be repaired as soon as we have the skills to do so. (Although where we would get clothes designers, hairdressers and interior decorators I am not sure :) ).

However, for many couples, both homosexual and heterosexual, in long lasting stable relationships, the initial passion moves onto other other levels. These individuals may well be in a relationship that has much less sexual activity but they love each other deeply and wish to stay together.

This is the crux of the thread really - why should those who wish to be in a long lasting relationship be dis-allowed the right to make legally binding commitments? Does it really matter to anyone else if a man or woman makes such a commitment? Busyman has already said wild horses would not drag him into such a relationship, so it is hardly likely to undermine his commitment to his family - nor, I suspect, anyone else.

As someone said above, you like what you like. a bit of paper in someone elses hand is not going to change that. Individual churches have the right to say anything they like is wrong and not permitted in their membership, be it homosexuality or eating Black Magic chocolates. However, this cannot impinge on the rights of others who do not share these beliefs. Society as a whole belongs to everyone and not just one viewpoint.
02-23-2004, 02:38 AM
Busyman

Biggles I actually don't even think we as humans have a driving force to procreate.
I think there is the urge to fuck. Procreation is a byproduct. Look at how many "accidents" there are :lol: :lol: . Take orgasms away and we'll see how much procreation there is.

Great post btw!!

If homosexuals are genetically that way, should there be marital rights given to the result of a "malfunction"?
Most folks on here agreed that if there is gay marriage that polygamy should also be allowed.
Under what criteria then?
Can I marry 20 wives? 40? Will my medical benefits cover them all?
How are is the estate split up in a divorce..(from x amount of wives)?

I see the writing on wall.
02-23-2004, 02:41 AM
Busyman

Quote:

Originally posted by Expire@22 February 2004 - 22:32
Deleted Post

Have you ever ass fucked your woman, er I mean little girlfriend?

Then you have stabbed shit too my friend.

Let's not move towards flaming any group.
02-23-2004, 04:08 AM
Alex H

Quote:

Originally posted by Busyman+23 February 2004 - 02:41--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman @ 23 February 2004 - 02:41)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Expire@22 February 2004 - 22:32
Deleted Post

Have you ever ass fucked your woman, er I mean little girlfriend?

Then you have stabbed shit too my friend.

Let's not move towards flaming any group. [/b][/quote]
Damn straight! No flaming you f*cking hetero! :lol:

Here's an interesting one: I've just been diagnosed with Summer Seasonal Affective Disorder (SSAD), meaning while most people get hot and bothered in summer, I sink into a depression and feel like killing myself. All the evidence (of which there is little) points to a genetic cause for my condition, however it only becomes aparent during the summer when humidity and temperature levels rise. So it is a genetic problem with an environmental trigger. Shit eh? Not much I can do. My brain is wired a bit different to most people, but it doesn't decrease my capacity for love and commitment.

My black friend doesn't have a problem loving people because he has different skin pigmentation.

My female friend doesn't have a problem with guys even though she was raped.

The gay couple around the corner from me who have been together for 42 years don't seem to have a problem with commitment. They have an adult adopted son, who is not gay ("Where did we go wrong?" they joke), has a girlfriend and will soon be a proud father, although he is not married.

Marriage does not mean love and commitment and love and commitment don't mean marriage. In the end it HAS to be about the couple in question and if they want to get married, let them - I wish them luck and happiness :hug:
02-23-2004, 04:15 PM
dwightfry

Quote:

And regarding dwightfry's comment, what...... a BIsexual has a medium sized corpus callosum? hogwash!!!

That's not at all what I meant. I didn't mean that everyone with a medium Corpus Callosum was bisexual, I meant that some do decide to be gay, they may land in that area, and that was just a thought that crossed through my mind while writing.

Straight Women have a small Corpus Callosum
Gay Men have a Corpus Callosum the same size of women
Straight Men have a large Corpus Callosum
Gay Women have a Corpus Callosum the same size of men

The study was made by Simon Levay.
http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Human%20...david_nimmo.htm

But, I should also post this that points out many flaws in his studys

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FR..._gaybrain.html

My point was, that there may be differences in the brain that at least reflect the sexual orientation which would prove that it isn't enviromental.
02-23-2004, 07:09 PM
Wizard_Mon1

Quote:

That there may be differences in the brain that at least reflect the sexual orientation which would prove that it isn't enviromental.

At least and Reflect don't prove anything.

They show there is some relation.

I would argue that a smaller Corpus Callosum might have a relation to an individuals abilty to suffer from repeatative thinking, it doesn't PROVE there is not any enviromental factors involved.

@ Biggles

Quote:

Flying in the face of extreme social pressure to pursue happiness in a same sex relationship.

Humans wants happyness in there life, where they find it is relative to thier situation and personal information (thoughts & habits).

Quote:

Busyman has put forward the notion that the urge to procreate is the single most important driving force behind all animal behaviour including humans. This is a fair point - this primal urge is indeed very strong and is almost certainly genetic. This does not in my view explain homosexuality. A man through genetic coding may be attracted to a young woman of child bearing age whose symmetrical appearance triggers all the codes that say "pass on your genes through her". It is most unlikely that another man could trigger such codes. Unless of course something is different.

Good point. Females give off pheromones that attract males. Are gay men biologically attracted to male pheromenes?. They are attracted to them because there is an imbalence in thier system. I am taking about the taoist concept of Yin & Yang when i talk about balence, e.g. excess yin, yang deficient.

In terms of reason from being gay, it makes to sense biologically (some benefits socially as already pointed out) to not pass on your genes. So if it is the case why has this 'malfuction of neural development' been selected for?

@ Alex h

Quote:

My black friend doesn't have a problem loving people because he has different skin pigmentation.

Are you saying we think he should? :blink:

Quote:

My female friend doesn't have a problem with guys even though she was raped.

This was also not what i was saying, i was pointing out that humans have subconcious reactions to there surroundings which can be built up until mental patterns and habits are formed.
02-23-2004, 07:15 PM
vidcc

Getting back on subject i see Arnie is going to take court action against the city of San francisco to stop it issuing marriage lisences to gay couples....perhaps he is not the man for the people and for fairness and individual rights he claimed to be.
02-23-2004, 07:40 PM
Wizard_Mon1

To many muscles :01: cloud his reasoning :wacko:

Is he really doing that? Is that what the majority of the public want?
02-23-2004, 07:47 PM
Busyman

Quote:

Originally posted by dwightfry@23 February 2004 - 12:15

Quote:

And regarding dwightfry's comment, what...... a BIsexual has a medium sized corpus callosum? hogwash!!!

That's not at all what I meant. I didn't mean that everyone with a medium Corpus Callosum was bisexual, I meant that some do decide to be gay, they may land in that area, and that was just a thought that crossed through my mind while writing.

Straight Women have a small Corpus Callosum
Gay Men have a Corpus Callosum the same size of women
Straight Men have a large Corpus Callosum
Gay Women have a Corpus Callosum the same size of men

The study was made by Simon Levay.
http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Human%20...david_nimmo.htm

But, I should also post this that points out many flaws in his studys

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FR..._gaybrain.html

My point was, that there may be differences in the brain that at least reflect the sexual orientation which would prove that it isn't enviromental.

Hey dwight I remember this Simon Levay study and remember the flaws.
I didn't know he was homosexual though and I had forgot his name for that matter.

Another good post btw!!!

I like this one

Quote:

To summarize, LeVay ignores previous studies, incongruities in his own data, and numerous alternative explanations for the "differences" he cites. Yet the media was quick to hail this study as the final proof. In Vancouver, Washington, The Columbian editorialized that INAH-3 "is always smaller in the brains of homosexual males than it is in other brains.... Now [gays] have evidence to back [their] faith [that they didn’t choose to be gay]. Anti-gay zealots won’t surrender their positions in the face of one scientific report; zeal may be defined as the refusal to see reason no matter what the evidence says. Anyone else should be able to see more clearly that hating a sexual preference is no more valid than hating eye color, skin tone, hair twist or any other characteristic based on biology."

A similar media circus was generated in 1984, when Science published an analogous study (8) on physiological differences between 17 heterosexual and 14 homosexual males. In spite of all the excitement, it led nowhere – again, a study using an extremely small sample. The chances are good that LeVay’s study will meet the same fate.

maybe some folks should take this to heart

Quote:

To have a "hunch" about something, then to argue that one’s hunch is proven by evidence that could just as plausibly be used by someone with a totally different "hunch" [e.g., a classical music instructor who "just knew" that smaller INAH-3 caused an appreciation of fine music], is much more like "wishful fishing" than serious scientific hypothesis testing.
02-23-2004, 07:56 PM
Busyman

Quote:

Originally posted by Wizard_Mon1@23 February 2004 - 15:09

In terms of reason from being gay, it makes to sense biologically (some benefits socially as already pointed out) to not pass on your genes. So if it is the case why has this 'malfuction of neural development' been selected for?

Then why do gay women AND men biologically still have children?
02-23-2004, 07:58 PM
vidcc

Quote:

Originally posted by Wizard_Mon1@23 February 2004 - 11:40
To many muscles :01: cloud his reasoning :wacko:

Is he really doing that? Is that what the majority of the public want?

yes he is doing it via the state attorney, if it is the wish of the majority or not, one could only find that out if a referendum took place
02-23-2004, 08:10 PM
Biggles

Thank you for the kind words Busyman. I agree, orgasms are nature's little carrots to get us interested. If sex was unpleasant it might not catch on. :D

Alex H move to Scotland - you won't suffer from summer problems here.

To be fair to Arnie, I think he has cited legal chaos as his primary concern rather than the issue itself (although I am sure he has half an eye on the ratings).
02-23-2004, 08:14 PM
Wizard_Mon1

Quote:

Originally posted by Busyman+23 February 2004 - 19:56--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman @ 23 February 2004 - 19:56)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Wizard_Mon1@23 February 2004 - 15:09

In terms of reason from being gay, it makes no sense biologically (some benefits socially as already pointed out) to not pass on your genes. So if it is the case why has this 'malfuction of neural development' been selected for?

Then why do gay women AND men biologically still have children? [/b][/quote]
Because humans are biologically hardwired to procreate, not just to fuck, as you so eloquently put it. :P If your opinion were correct females would have sex with any male, but as they are looking for someone who will look after and provide for there child, they are more picky. Males want to pass there seed on to as many women as possible, this is not because they just want to fuck, but because the more children they produce the more likely there genetic line is to be passed on. Further more if they just want to fuck, would anyone look after children? :smilie4:
02-23-2004, 08:58 PM
Busyman

Quote:

Originally posted by Wizard_Mon1+23 February 2004 - 16:14--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Wizard_Mon1 @ 23 February 2004 - 16:14)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Quote:

Originally posted by Busyman@23 February 2004 - 19:56
<!--QuoteBegin-Wizard_Mon1

Quote:

@23 February 2004 - 15:09

In terms of reason from being gay, it makes no sense biologically (some benefits socially as already pointed out) to not pass on your genes. So if it is the case why has this 'malfuction of neural development' been selected for?

Then why do gay women AND men biologically still have children?

Because humans are biologically hardwired to procreate, not just to fuck, as you so eloquently put it. :P If your opinion were correct females would have sex with any male, but as they are looking for someone who will look after and provide for there child, they are more picky. Males want to pass there seed on to as many women as possible, this is not because they just want to fuck, but because the more children they produce the more likely there genetic line is to be passed on. Further more if they just want to fuck, would anyone look after children? :smilie4: [/b][/quote]
I still don't think there is this "driving force" for humans to procreate.

I think it's more social or cultural.

I could be sterile and I'll still want to fuck.

Homosexual females will sometimes have kids through a "donor" (1 finds some guy to fuck). What about the other woman? She really isn't procreating.

Homosexual females in general actually DO NOT use donors, they adopt if they want kids. Sometimes they'll say, "We are having a baby". "We" aren't doing anything, your girlfriend is.

Homosexual males in general don't use surrogate mothers, they adopt.

Where is this driving force when let's say having a baby gets in the way of your career. You say, "I'll have one when I land this major contract".

As for looking after children again your delving into a social issue. Some people have dogs. Are you saying there's a driving force to......look after pets?

A driving force kicks you in the ass.

It's not your ass kicking the driving force.
02-23-2004, 10:36 PM
Wizard_Mon1

So female urges to have children are just a social phenomena?
02-23-2004, 11:28 PM
Busyman

Quote:

Originally posted by Wizard_Mon1@23 February 2004 - 18:36
So female urges to have children are just a social phenomena?

In part, yes.

I sounds good to say, "Men want to spread their seed in as many women as possible." It's sounds really "scientific" but think....do you have sex in an effort to make a baby all the time?
Does a woman have sex to do the same all the time?

When it's really, "Men really want to orgasm inside this warm place as much as possible. If the warm place is in women then a baby may or may not be created."
02-23-2004, 11:42 PM
Wizard_Mon1

Quote:

Originally posted by Busyman+23 February 2004 - 23:28--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman @ 23 February 2004 - 23:28)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Wizard_Mon1@23 February 2004 - 18:36
So female urges to have children are just a social phenomena?

In part, yes. [/b][/quote]
:huh: Care to explain?

If you look all over the animal kingdom you will see many instances of sex for furthering your genetic line, e.g. a type of monkey that has extra bit on his member for scooping out a competitors sperm, or male spiders that shed there load then get eaten.
Humans have a much more complex social existence but or biological want to further our line still exists.

Edit - you explained after i quoted.

We don't always have sex to procreate but it is an inherant part of our nature to create offspring. Even if sex was not enjoyable we would still go through it because we are designed to.
02-23-2004, 11:50 PM
Rat Faced

Quote:

Originally posted by Busyman@23 February 2004 - 23:28

When it's really, "Men really want to orgasm inside this warm place as much as possible. If the warm place is in women then a baby may or may not be created."

Men!

Bastards!

Remind me to not get drunk with any of them again.... :unsure:

:unsure:
02-23-2004, 11:58 PM
Agrajag

With regard to the procreation thing, I would suggest that any female who had gone through childbirth once would not chose to go through it again. Particularly as there are many ways to ensure no more childbirth can occur.

Why then do people have more than one child. The love making can be organised with absolutely no chance of a child being made. There must be an urge, at least in some women, to procreate. This must also outweigh the desire not to go through the process of giving birth.
02-24-2004, 12:03 AM
Busyman

Quote:

Originally posted by Wizard_Mon1+23 February 2004 - 19:42--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Wizard_Mon1 @ 23 February 2004 - 19:42)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Quote:

Originally posted by Busyman@23 February 2004 - 23:28
<!--QuoteBegin-Wizard_Mon1

Quote:

@23 February 2004 - 18:36
So female urges to have children are just a social phenomena?

In part, yes.

Even if sex was not enjoyable we would still go through it because we are designed to. [/b][/quote]
I totally disagree.

We have sex because it is enjoyable (want to have an orgasm).

Our bodies ARE "designed" to procreate yes.

Penis goes in vagina, drops load, blahblahblah...

.....but without the clitoris, G-spot, and penis, most of us wouldn't be here.

Sorry but our enjoyment is what separates us from extinction.
02-24-2004, 12:07 AM
Busyman

Quote:

Originally posted by Agrajag@23 February 2004 - 19:58
With regard to the procreation thing, I would suggest that any female who had gone through childbirth once would not chose to go through it again. Particularly as there are many ways to ensure no more childbirth can occur.

Why then do people have more than one child. The love making can be organised with absolutely no chance of a child being made. There must be an urge, at least in some women, to procreate. This must also outweigh the desire not to go through the process of giving birth.

There is the urge to raise kids. They are cute.
Furthermore it is fascinating seeing a little you.
The kid has your eyes and nose. Sometimes it's a spitting image of you.

There are some people that adopt rather than go through childbirth, some of them homosexual I might add.
02-24-2004, 12:17 AM
Wizard_Mon1

You are saying that if sex wasn't enjoyable then the human race not procreate anmd therefore die out. Look at examples in the animla kingdom.... we are just complex animals. At some point in our long evolution sex was not enjoyable but we didn't stop creating offspring.

Some women can't orgasm will they never have kids?

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page